@Xabiss: you guys are misunderstanding what I'm proposing. What I'm proposing is 2 separate servers or lobbies, one for the players using controllers, and one for players using kb/m. In this scenario there won't be any unfair advantages. I realise this will inevitably split the player base but in the long run I believe it will be a case of survival of the fittest, and more and more players will start to migrate to kb/m controls for fps, and eventually the majority of players will be using kb/m. This will become the new standard on consoles, and they can leave a small server on for folks that still prefer controller. Or instead of creating separate servers for each control method, make the game cross play with pc and when the game detects kb/m it automatically transfers you to the pc servers. Everyone wins.
@Vatusus: you sir deserve a trophy, the fact they don't realise you're acknowledging their points and yet they are still trying to argue that framerates COMPLETELY change the experience of the game just shows they can't comprehend your point. Just leave them be bro, maybe they just need to reread your posts after they have gotten off the framerste high horse. Lol. And then they bring up mods, as if that was what the argument was about. Guys he's simply saying the actual framerate you experience on pc compared to console will not greatly affect your overall experience of a game like the witcher 3 because it does not require quick reflexes or great accuracy for the combat, which is where a higher framerate could potentially make a difference. He's already acknowledged it would make a difference for other games, such as competitive shooters, just not this game. Now everyone chillout and play some games.
@drlostrib: they are leaving it up to the devs but atleast microsoft has given the go ahead. And any first person shooter devs that chose not to allow their players to use kb/m are seriously handicapping their players potential.
@BigBadBully: yeah I'm hoping once it goes gold it'll be running 60fps on the one x. I bought my XbX under the assumption I would be able to run my games at settings higher than the basic consoles, so I hope microsoft and bluehole get this right soon.
@creepywelps: i meant to say cpu, thats a typo, i corrected it, my bad. Either way, let me get some mouse and keyboard support microsoft, ill settle for 30fps ...for now...puts hands in pockets and kicks can
@creepywelps: I hear you it's 2 different engines, but then that leaves me to believe it comes down to the devs and and how good they are with their engine which is basically what ive been saying from the start. And maybe I just don't know enough about game developing but how is going DOWN from 4k to 1080 MORE taxing on the cpu. That makes no sense.
@creepywelps: you think so? Why not? I think it could definitely achieve 1080/60, here's my reasoning. Take battlefield 4 and its 64 player conquest mode, i know its not the same game, but i feel they are similar and according to eurogamer and digital foundry the original xbox one was was running that game at 720p and 40-50 fps. Don't forget that game had destructible environments, planes and vehicles too plus 64 players on a huge map, all constantly respawning. If they og xbox could do all that at 720/40-50fps, why cant the XBX which is about 5 times more powerful run pubg at 1080/60fps. With the proper dev time I think it's achievable.
Log in to comment